Qatar denied extra capacity into Australia

[Pushka]

Qatar houses the Hamas elite, so they wouldn't even need to leave Doha to meet them.

Ah, having said that perhaps there are diplomatic reasons why the Govt rejected more flights to parts of Australia other than some MP being in the CL.

Then just maybe they should have cancelled every flight because you can't be just a part time terrorist

 

[UP4014]

That type of reasoning has been suggested before. If it was the or a contributing reason, then the question then arises as to why the Australian government would allow any QR flights into Australia. Its either a moral position or its not.

Agree, my morals wouldn't allow them.

Post automatically merged: Oct 31, 2023

Then just maybe they should have cancelled every flight because you can't be just a part time terrorist

Correct, perhaps they shouldn't be flying here at all.

 

[Pushka]

Agree, my morals wouldn't allow them.

Post automatically merged: Oct 31, 2023

Correct, perhaps they shouldn't be flying here at all.

So why are they if your reasoning is correct? Maybe it just wasn't a consideration.

 

[OATEK]

That type of reasoning has been suggested before. If it was the or a contributing reason, then the question then arises as to why the Australian government would allow any QR flights into Australia. Its either a moral position or its not.

Then just maybe they should have cancelled every flight because you can't be just a part time terrorist

There is a treaty in place. and yes, AUSGOV could seek to cancel, but that is not what this thread is about. The question remains as to why the AUSGOV refused to renegotiate the treaty with Qatar and allow additional flights to major cities, and the decision predates the current conflict which has brought the Hamas issue to the fore. We have long had treaty agreements with countries that have very different values, and this issue with Qatar seems no different to me.

I do think though that having at first seeming to hold a strong hand following the Senate enquiry, the conflict in Israel has now put Qatar on the back foot, and makes it much more difficult for them to get the extra flights.

 

[UP4014]

So why are they if your reasoning is correct? Maybe it just wasn't a consideration.

When has politics and diplomacy been about morals.

I’m sure it is part of the consideration but how much we don’t know.

 

[Quickstatus]

When has politics and diplomacy been about morals.

All the time - it's all about "morals". Political/diplomatic exchanges - especially when in public are always coloured/justified by "morals".

 

[Himeno]

That type of reasoning has been suggested before. If it was the or a contributing reason, then the question then arises as to why the Australian government would allow any QR flights into Australia. Its either a moral position or its not.

It is harder to get out of an existing treaty (which also creates other problems) then it is to prevent an expansion to a treaty.

 

[UP4014]

All the time - it's all about "morals". Political/diplomatic exchanges - especially when in public are always coloured/justified by "morals".

Yes Minister - The Moral Dimension.

 

[OZDUCK]

Yes Minister - The Moral Dimension.

Or - The Whisky Priest

 

[Jacques Vert]

Qatar houses the Hamas elite, so they wouldn't even need to leave Doha to meet them.

Qatar also hosts the USA Central Command's forward headquarters at Al Udeid Air Base.

 

[Quickstatus]

Go back to WW2 when Switzerland remained neutral.

 

[evanb]

There is a treaty in place. and yes, AUSGOV could seek to cancel, but that is not what this thread is about. The question remains as to why the AUSGOV refused to renegotiate the treaty with Qatar and allow additional flights to major cities, and the decision predates the current conflict which has brought the Hamas issue to the fore. We have long had treaty agreements with countries that have very different values, and this issue with Qatar seems no different to me.

I do think though that having at first seeming to hold a strong hand following the Senate enquiry, the conflict in Israel has now put Qatar on the back foot, and makes it much more difficult for them to get the extra flights.

For what it's worth, there isn't a treaty in place. The Australia-Qatar bilateral agreement is not in the form of a Treaty meaning that it is not subject to the same degree of protections and international enforcement mechanisms. It does make it easier to cancel though.

Many bilaterals are treaties, which are generally ratified by Parliament in many countries and subject to greater protections and international enforcement mechanisms.

 

[justinbrett]

For what it's worth, there isn't a treaty in place. The Australia-Qatar bilateral agreement is not in the form of a Treaty meaning that it is not subject to the same degree of protections and international enforcement mechanisms. It does make it easier to cancel though.

Many bilaterals are treaties, which are generally ratified by Parliament in many countries and subject to greater protections and international enforcement mechanisms.

You are incorrect in Australia.

Treaties are approved by executive government, they do not require parliamentary approvals like some countries unless they require legislation. An ASA is effectively a regulatory matter so do not require specific legislation.

An ASA is a treaty. But not every change to the agreement requires a new treaty - but they still hold their power from the original treaty. An agreement of less than treaty status is possible but it wouldn't be called an ASA - and probably would take the form of a MOU.

The last ASA treaty with Qatar was signed in 2016.

 

[evanb]

You are incorrect in Australia.

Treaties are approved by executive government, they do not require parliamentary approvals like some countries unless they require legislation. An ASA is effectively a regulatory matter so do not require specific legislation.

An ASA is a treaty. But not every change to the agreement requires a new treaty - but they still hold their power from the original treaty. An agreement of less than treaty status is possible but it wouldn't be called an ASA - and probably would take the form of a MOU.

The last ASA treaty with Qatar was signed in 2016.

As I said, "which are generally ratified by Parliament in many countries". I didn't say they were in Australia, rather highlighting that they require different processes. You are correct that they are not ratified by Parliament in Australia, however they are "reported" to Parliament through Joint Standing Committee on Treaties who have the oversight role.

In the case of Australia-Qatar air services, the Department explicitly indicate that it is "undergoing treaty process" and the agreement is a "less-than-treaty status" and isn't legacy binding. See: Australia's air services agreements & arrangements

 

[justinbrett]

As I said, "which are generally ratified by Parliament in many countries". I didn't say they were in Australia, rather highlighting that they require different processes. You are correct that they are not ratified by Parliament in Australia, however they are "reported" to Parliament through Joint Standing Committee on Treaties who have the oversight role.

In the case of Australia-Qatar air services, the Department explicitly indicate that it is "undergoing treaty process" and the agreement is a "less-than-treaty status" and isn't legacy binding. See: Australia's air services agreements & arrangements

The MOU is the "less than treaty status" part. It is backed by a full treaty signed in 2016.

I think your confusion might be caused by that table which is not the best (a lot due to the fact that much of the agreements are in confidence and not publicly available).

But as per the senate review:

Timeline of the decision​

The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts (DITRDCA) took the committee through the timeline in relation to the request from Qatar Airways. The request was received by DITRDCA on 22August 2022 and it was considered 'a straightforward amendment to the MOU which forms part of a treaty which establishes the capacity arrangements'.

 

[evanb]

The MOU is the "less than treaty status" part. It is backed by a full treaty signed in 2016.

I think your confusion might be caused by that table which is not the best (a lot due to the fact that much of the agreements are in confidence and not publicly available).

But as per the senate review:

Timeline of the decision​

The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts (DITRDCA) took the committee through the timeline in relation to the request from Qatar Airways. The request was received by DITRDCA on 22August 2022 and it was considered 'a straightforward amendment to the MOU which forms part of a treaty which establishes the capacity arrangements'.

Go search the DFAT treaty database, or the Australian Treaties Library or the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties for treaties with Qatar and see what comes up ...

I'll eat my words when you can share a screenshot showing a treaty with Qatar with respect to air services!

 

[justinbrett]

Go search the DFAT treaty database, or the Australian Treaties Library or the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties for treaties with Qatar and see what comes up ...

I'll eat my words when you can share a screenshot showing a treaty with Qatar with respect to air services!

I'm not here to defend a database.

The database says there is a treaty, and it is signed (in 2016). I don't know why it says it's not yet in force (but in operational effect). It's possibly because Qatar has put in multiple change requests.

Certainly all the experts, including the department, refer to it as a treaty. And there's also the fact that an Air Services Agreement - in Australia at least - IS a treaty. If you want to debate the precise status than fine, but you said the agreement was not a treaty, and that is what I'm refuting.

 

[PineappleSkip]

Go search the DFAT treaty database

I'll bite. Here's the entry for the Qatar agreement. It looks to me like the 2016 agreement is drafted as a treaty but hasn't ever been through the full treaty process; i.e. JSCOT etc. I'm guessing that if parties want it confidential it'll stay that way.

In substance I don't think that would mean much in practice, it's still an agreement that the two states have entered into in good faith.

cheers skip

 

[justinbrett]

There is a national interest clause inserted into the Qatar ASA (according to the PM) that was not put in any other, possibly that's why it's more confidential than most.

 

[evanb]

I'm not here to defend a database.

The database says there is a treaty, and it is signed (in 2016). I don't know why it says it's not yet in force (but in operational effect). It's possibly because Qatar has put in multiple change requests.

Certainly all the experts, including the department, refer to it as a treaty. And there's also the fact that an Air Services Agreement - in Australia at least - IS a treaty. If you want to debate the precise status than fine, but you said the agreement was not a treaty, and that is what I'm refuting.

My point was simply that until it is a treaty is has limited enforcement mechanisms internationally and that Australia would have little difficulty withdrawing. I have no doubt that they will not withdraw since it does not serve Australia's national interest. While they may have fundamental disagreements with Qatar, withdrawing from an agreement will result in a tit-for-tat escalation limiting any meaningful engagement that Australia may need or want with Qatar.

Post automatically merged: Oct 31, 2023

I'll bite. Here's the entry for the Qatar agreement. It looks to me like the 2016 agreement is drafted as a treaty but hasn't ever been through the full treaty process; i.e. JSCOT etc. I'm guessing that if parties want it confidential it'll stay that way.

In substance I don't think that would mean much in practice, it's still an agreement that the two states have entered into in good faith.

Indeed my point. The difference between the status quo and entry into force is that the typical reciprocal elements and enforcement mechanisms are non-binding. For example, if it were a treaty, it may have an arbitration mechanism to settle disputes.